memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:31dot/Archive2011
For older conversations, see the pre-admin archive and the 2009 archive. Trimming summaries and how long should they be Ah, I see the guideline now. In Memory Alpha:Editing guidelines. By the way, does trimming a plot summary require the original text be moved to talk? I'd think not, as that's more rewriting than simple removal. Is there a suggestion for how long or detailed plots should be? I looked at a few FAs. Dark Frontier is roughly 23 pgs and The Thaw 12 pgs on my screen. Whereas Broken Bow and Star Trek First Contact are 7 pgs. Setacourse 22:07, December 8, 2009 (UTC) :In my opinion (just my opinion, you might want to ask around :) ) a rewrite that simply changes wording or other minor things doesn't need to be copied to the talk page, it just needs to be noted in the summary what happened. I don't even think single sentences need to be copied over unless they are controversial or in dispute. In general, only the outright removal of a passage should be moved to the talk page. :I think that the episode summaries should be detailed enough to provide a general idea of the events of the episode, but they do not need to note every minute action, quote, or detail. For example, I know I edited a lot of Voyager summaries to remove name, title, and race of all the major characters in those summaries- this information doesn't need to be on every page. I don't know how helpful that is. :I'm not sure I can say they should be a certain length in pages other than to say the longer episodes should have longer summaries.--31dot 22:35, December 8, 2009 (UTC) :I would add that there might be instances where similarly long episodes might have summaries of different lengths, which could depend on what happened in the episode, but there are probably instances here where some summaries are long just because they are long. I think a good guide is if the summary takes almost as long to read as to see the episode, it's too long. I've seen that here.--31dot 22:39, December 8, 2009 (UTC) ::In my view summaries should not replace watching the show. They should be more along the lines of a helpful guide while watching the show to give you the information that might be unclear or give you a link to that new race that was mentioned or what ever. With regards to rewrites yes changes to text should not be copied to the talk page I don't even think quotes should be as they're quotes and can easily be replaced (but it seems I'm alone on that one) — Morder (talk) 23:07, December 8, 2009 (UTC) I agree with most everything said, as it comes across as common sense to me. I just didn't know if there was a rule or guideline for plot detail, as I thought "Reference deleted content on the talk page" was more a custom or courtesy until 31dot strongly implied it was a rule. By the way, should "If you find false information in an article, mention it on the talk page and describe the corrections – because if one person believed it was true, chances are someone else believed it was true, too." be changed to "If you delete something in an article, mention it on the talk page and describe the corrections - because if one person added it, chances are others will too." Most things deleted (and moved to talk) aren't false. They're non-canon, speculation, badly sourced or unnecessary. Setacourse 18:54, December 9, 2009 (UTC) :I would recommend that you bring that up on the editing guidelines talk page, so it's more visible.--31dot 20:06, December 9, 2009 (UTC) ::Good point. Done. And I changed my proposed wording slightly too, though I'm not married to it. Setacourse 22:19, December 9, 2009 (UTC) NO! no! don't give him fuel! :) This person has been trouble before and even called me "libelous". (which if he was any kind of smarts he would know that the legal term only applies if I've irreparably damaged his character - which I didn't) Ignoring him would probably be the best solution as it's clear he isn't going to let this site be. — Morder (talk) 02:38, December 9, 2009 (UTC) :You're right, I won't comment on it again. I reviewed his talk page after I posted and saw that. This person seems to think they're an attorney or something, but as you say they're way off. You didn't even say anything bad.--31dot 02:43, December 9, 2009 (UTC) I wasn't even going to sign for the anon but I figured someone else would and reply which is why I signed away...hoping nobody else would care. Oh well...just something we'll have to deal with... :) — Morder (talk) 02:45, December 9, 2009 (UTC) I disagree I don't think Garak was a minor character in DS9. I think he was in a lot of episodes and played a sufficient part to be notified as not a minor character. Also, why Q? He's just plain, and simply annoying. :By "minor" I mean not a main cast member. --31dot 21:14, December 10, 2009 (UTC) Questions And Comments: Could you please leave, at least, the quote about Riker addressing Argyle?????? I have watched this episode, many times (most recent is last week) And I know, that that is the Correct line. What policy fobids that?! As for the speculations, I see them everywhere on this site. They are itallic and in boxes. In-Correct 23:47, December 10, 2009 (UTC) :If you see any uncited speculations it only means that we have not gotten around to removing them yet, or they can be backed up with evidence, such as a statement from a cast or crew member, or other evidence. This prevents the articles from being loaded down with fan-based speculations, which would overrun the site. :The quote is fine, I removed it inadvertently.--31dot 00:17, December 11, 2009 (UTC) Category Heh, didn't even give me a chance to delete it. :) — Morder (talk) 11:05, December 18, 2009 (UTC) :Sorry. :) I saw the category before I saw you had already removed it from the pages. Timing.......--31dot 11:07, December 18, 2009 (UTC) Yeah, someone should have "talked" to the anon already since he's created the category several times. I think I'll "deleted pages" it. — Morder (talk) 11:09, December 18, 2009 (UTC) :Good idea. If we were going to create a category about that (I'm not convinced on that yet) I don't think that would be the name that would be agreed upon.--31dot 11:13, December 18, 2009 (UTC) Agreed. — Morder (talk) 11:14, December 18, 2009 (UTC) Galaxy-class removal by IP That IP is a dynamic one, also adding that the Intrepid-class Bellerophon participated in major battles in DS9 (when I'm basically 100% sure it was only seen/mentioned in 1 DS9 episode, and no battle) on half a dozen pages without edit summary. I left him a message on yesterday's IP User_talk:78.1.249.119. Maybe he didn't see it, but him blindly reverting helps no one. I see you've just locked Galaxy-class. Good. He was removing info Dec 1 too. Just wondering if I should leave him a message at his new IP, whether the other articles should be locked, or anything else done. Setacourse 02:52, December 26, 2009 (UTC) :Back in a sec....--31dot 03:06, December 26, 2009 (UTC) :OK, I blocked them to stop their spree for now. I might post some sort of message on his other IP, if only to let others know what they've done. Thanks for reverting some of that stuff. :) --31dot 03:09, December 26, 2009 (UTC) :I see you put a little message there yesterday, that should work for now.--31dot 03:12, December 26, 2009 (UTC) You're welcome, and cool. Setacourse 03:15, December 26, 2009 (UTC) Block of 78.3.12.180 I think the block of this anon is unfair. No one made any attempt to contact this anon or help them improve their editing until you sent them the warning at 22:44. The anon's last edit was more than an hour before you sent them a warning, at 21:40, yet despite the fact that they had not continued with poor editing after your initial warning, you blocked the anon for three days. This seems entirely unwarranted, especially considering the edits seem to have been made in good faith, based on a belief that Admiral Ross was using Bellerophon as his flagship throughout the war. These were not porn links, vulgarity, or whatever, yet you blocked them without waiting to see if they had learned from your warning. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:34, December 26, 2009 (UTC) :If you'll read the above discussion and look for yourself, you will see that not only did I warn them, but Setacourse did as well under their other dynamic IP address. I did not block them becuase of poor editing, I blocked them to prevent having to follow them everywhere cleaning up after them and if they had posted on their talk page or explained themselves I would have lifted the block that instant. As it is now I will lift it because it is over with.--31dot 11:49, December 26, 2009 (UTC) Your warning to the anon mentioned nothing about alt accounts, and an editor being blocked should not have to search other users talk pages to figure out what is going on. It should be on their talk page. Regardless of that, you still blocked them after giving them a warning, and they had halted their behavior. None of the alt accounts had made vandalistic edits or violated the warning in the time between the warning and your multi-day block. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:59, December 27, 2009 (UTC) ::The big issue is that the same guy came back on 8 different IPs over the last 3 weeks (or so). Most (all?) of his additions have been deleted. Chasing them all around to link them all together would be a huge pain. Sometimes a quick block is the best way to get someone's attention. In that case, it's best to throw up a quick block with a "read and respond on your talk page" note. -- sulfur 18:03, December 27, 2009 (UTC) Which I would have been fine with, but that isn't what was done here. He was told to stop misbehaving or it would be treated as vandalism, then blocked after he'd not done anything else. For all intents and purposes, he had "stopped." While this is likely because they just weren't online, it doesn't matter. They had not continued to take action in violation of their warning. No one had even tried to contact them before this to begin with. I'm not asking that all of their accounts be "collected and linked together," but there isn't even a mention of alt account use on this persons warning. All that happened was he was given a warning, and and half an hour later, after no violation of the warning and no further editing under any IP address, blocked for no continued activity. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:10, December 27, 2009 (UTC) :I didn't think I needed to tell someone who is using multiple IPs that they are using multiple IP's- they either know this or are oblivious to it and won't care. I instituted the block, as Sulfur said, to get the person's attention more than anything else, but I have seen instances where a person will come back after that amount of time or slightly longer. I'll also note that the day after I lifted the block he did it again.--31dot 22:20, December 27, 2009 (UTC) Why I don't use Preview, but do multiple edits I cannot use the Preview button instead of doing multiple edits. That is because I often decide to do an edit, then change my mind later and decide to do another edit. Also, I usually read the article, and while reading it, I also proofread it. I cannot read the article in Preview mode; it is not comfortable. Sorry if this causes you some minor inconvenience. -- 07:36, January 26, 2010 (UTC) :I would suggest that you find a way to become comfortable with it, as it exists precisely to see what something looks like in case you change your mind. I notice that it took you four edits just to write your message, Preview would have helped you here. I'm not sure how it is any more difficult to read the article in Preview than after you save your edit- they look the same. :No one can make you do it, but if you do not others will comment on it as well.--31dot 10:46, January 26, 2010 (UTC) Image order RE: revert. There is no policy, guideline or concensus on which image gets priority. --Alan 13:59, February 9, 2010 (UTC) :Okay, I know it's been discussed somewhere, which I will try to find..........but anyway, are you saying it doesn't make sense to have the most recent image first?--31dot 14:13, February 9, 2010 (UTC) :I'm not sure where that discussion is- it might have had to do with simply having more than one image in the sidebar but I know this subject or something similar has been mentioned before. I guess I just saw no reason to change it from the way it was- but since I can't prove what I've said I changed it back.--31dot 14:32, February 9, 2010 (UTC) ::At the very least, the fact that all TOS sidebars look alike has been construed as implicit consensus in 2007 already: Template talk:Sidebar character. I believe there are even earlier discussions than that. Having a different order just for TOS character has never made too much sense to me, but there you go. Maybe another thing to discuss while we're scrutinizing sidebars already. -- Cid Highwind 14:33, February 9, 2010 (UTC) :::I know between Morder and I, we had switched all the TOS images to having the most recent one on top, and Morder had mentioned that it was discussed before as well, so he might know where. This should definitely be discussed now though, since it keeps coming up and we've put pretty much everything else on the table anyways. - 14:58, February 9, 2010 (UTC) PfD for article templates In a way, that covered all of the article templates. So, the intent was for the discussion to expand to those (assuming consensus was reached). Just FYI. -- sulfur 02:31, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :That's cool. Cid had said he was going to bring them up individually, which I took to mean seperate pages. But a simple expansion is better. :) --31dot 11:11, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :Meant to say that I'm not exactly sure what those pages might be, but I did un-archive the page so they can be brought up.--31dot 11:22, February 15, 2010 (UTC) Deletion Well, whatever. I only created it because I couldn't remember Carey's first name, and because the search feature on Memory Alpha is so poor, I had a very hard time finding the article on him without it.--Antodav 02:28, February 24, 2010 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for your comment - I just wanted to inform you that I removed each quote in a separate edit on purpose. The purpose was that of letting everyone feel free to revert specific edits if there's any good reason. Yet I agree that maybe that wasn't the right choice considering the increasing size of the database. I think I'll opt for some sort of happy medium the next time I'll edit an article.